Followers

Thursday, November 06, 2014

Why I Don't Think Kenya Is Serious About National Security

A version of this article was published in The StarSecurity is now firmly back on the agenda in Kenya. The news
media is today awash with coverage of the response to the weekend attacks on police
and military installations at the coast and the murder of 24 policemen in the marginalized
and restive North East. TV and radio talk shows, as well as newpaper column
inches are devoted to a discuss ion of the possible reasons for the security failures
and with questions over the future employment of the officials in charge of the
security system.

Granted the speech is not his best effort. Convoluted and rambling, it appears to be more about being seen to say something clever than actually
providing clear and succinct analysis and articulation of strategic priorities.
Filled with fluff rather than serious policy choices, it is a major speech to
senior security officials that reads like a first year undergraduate paper.

So perhaps it is no surprise that no one is seemingly interested
in it. However, given that this was a speech meant “to begin a
critical conversation on the identification, articulation and pursuit of Kenya’s
national security interests,” it deserves more than just the cursory attention
it has received in the press.

Here’s a brief synopsis of what he had to say. He first lays out
a shaky case for the historical underpinnings of national security which he
appears to understand narrowly as the struggle to resist foreign domination (not
surprising given his troubles at the International Criminal Court). The threats
to this, he avers, stem from the troubled neighbourhood we live in, the need to
manage the youthful exuberance of many of our citizens, the poverty and
inequality that is characteristic of our economy, the politicisation of
national security, threats posed by global state and non-state actors and the
weakness of our own state. The President sees the latter as “the leading cause
of insecurity of all forms” and thus his preferred solution is to “build a
strong state whose actions will be guided and constrained by the spirit and
letter of our democratic constitution.”

But how do we actually build this “strong state”? He does not
say. His much-touted 10-point plan turns out to be not much of a plan at all
but rather a characterisation of what he thinks “strong state” should be able
to do do. What is the role of other actors in the security ecosystem such as the
armed private citizens we saw at Westgate and that are prevalent across the
northern frontier? Or of the private security companies? That national security is not
just a matter for the state but involves all of society appears to elude him as
does the multifaceted nature of the subject.

In fact he appears unaware that, as demonstrated by the report of the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission, the state’s
demonstration of its strength has many times been the main driver of insecurity. Also the fact, as Jeffrey Isima of Cranfield University notes, that “in many
countries of Africa [including Kenya], the provision of security has long been
private in the sense that it was provided as a private good for the protection
of particular groups, such as the ruling elite, to the exclusion of or against
others, rather than as a public good.”

Further, his specious prescriptions that the state should “delineate
the rights and duties of citizens,” or treat threats against “a single ruler or
the democratic multitude” as the same, or treat citizen groups as “actors that
may be drivers for other agenda” betray his own personalization and politicization of the security agenda, just as we saw him do in the aftermath of the Mpeketoni
attacks.

Security analyst, Andrew Franklin, says “the President failed to
recognize our refusal to implement the four security related acts even while
spending in excess of Kshs 140 billion.” These include the National Police
Service Act, which is meant to create a consolidated police service. Mr Franklin
also faults the President for claiming that there is no "elite consensus”
on national security aims and objectives. “This is false. There may be
differences of opinion regarding tactics, short term strategies, methods and
means but ultimate objectives --peace and security--are not seriously
questioned,” he declares. Here, President Kenyatta’s speechwriters, in their
hurry to take a dig at the opposition and civil society, seem to have confused
disagreement over tactics with a row over strategic aims.

This pedestrian and cavalier approach of the President to the
weighty challenges posed by insecurity demonstrates that his administration has
primarily approached them as public relations issues. However, those in the
opposition and many of us in the rest of society have not behaved any better. Mr
Franklin notes that “to date the opposition offers only platitudes, clever
comments and sarcasm. Nobody wants to express definite opinions about anything
either because taking responsibility and perhaps being wrong are not
characteristics of our collective leadership. Or they are simply uninformed and
ignorant but too insecure to admit to any lack of knowledge.”

We seem to have forsaken
our thinking caps and are only interested in simplistic “action” such as the
resignation of officials or a withdrawal from Somalia. We have failed to create
–and more importantly, are not seeking to create- an overarching analytical
framework within which to understand the systemic and systematic failures in
the security system, how they came about and how they can be fixed.

Thus there is little demand for the government to live up to its
promise to establish a public inquiry into the Westgate mall attack or to
publish the report of the probe into the fire that almost razed the Jomo
Kenyatta International Airport; little interest in understanding the roots of
radicalisation and disaffection in the historically marginalized communities of
the coast and the north; little thought given to the organisation of our
security forces or the proper role of the Kenya Defence Forces and the dangers,
wisdom and legality of its extended and indefinite deployment within our
borders. Even where we have investigated what went wrong, reports such as that
published by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority detailing the police failures during the Mpeketoni attacks do not prompt change.

It is time we took our security seriously. Many of the problems
we face have deep roots that will not be resolved by playing dress up or bullying communities as the state is trying to do or simply getting rid of one or two
officials. We must go back and examine when the rain started to beat us, which
as the Deputy President William Ruto has acknowledged, is many years and many
regimes ago. We must strive to understand the causes of and reasons for our
vulnerabilities, and ruminate over possible solutions. We must invite and
consider the opinion and advice of experts both local and international.

In short, on all sides, we must treat the national security
problem as an existential threat, not an opportunity to score a few
points politically and publicly. We should insist on a well informed
debate and, importantly, a comprehensive and public inquiry into our national
security system with a view to identifying and correcting the problems, and where
necessary, re-orienting priorities. Above all, let us all put on our thinking
caps and figure out how we go about the business of making every Kenyan safe. It’s
about time the adults came to the table.

3 comments:

We are on the same page on this one. Save for one minor difference. It'll appear pedantic and an exercise ins semantics, but given the power of words to shape how we think, I believe it is something that could contribute to shifting perceptions about the state of affairs.

We repeat the word "security" without considering how it can be interpreted in different ways by different actors. It is also a largely defensive word; it implies protection from violent threats, protection from harm. It very rarely conjures up feelings of safety.

I believe that if we changed the conversion from one obsessed with "security" to one that appreciates the nuances of "public safety", then we may begin to inject sanity in the system. In "security" we worry about police:civilian rations, total number of arms in private hands, total number of offenders arrested or stopped, and such like. In "security" the State and its agents treat the people as a threat and is always looking for reasons to spy on them, detain them without trial, employ extra-legal means to control them, etc.

However, in "public safety" it is not just policing of the civilian population that prevails. Mundane subjects such traffic jams, street lighting, road potholes, pedestrian walkways, free basic education, free primary healthcare, efficient urban mass transit, efficient urban waste management, effective public sanitation...These are the civic elements that contribute to a general sense of wellbeing among the people, promote confidence in public institutions and lower incidences of petty crime which in the longer term contribute to greater civic participation in promoting national security.

Maundu SD,I entirely agree that we do need an expanded conception of what "national security" is and that a change in terminology might be appropriate.We also factor in the different ways insecurity affects the different sections of the population and how this undermines our common identity as citizens.

A great commentary indeed. I often feel powerless when it comes to issues relating to govt action or inaction with regards to security. I feel as you have stated that the govt isn't particularly interested in solving security challenges decisively or conclusively. I have many thoughts/ideas/contributions but like most citizens, I feel too far removed from the political elite and my ideas are simply mine to wallow in. How do we get the govt to listen to us or pay us mind? If this is a collective responsibility, where and how can I be included in seeking lasting solutions?